What happened on September 11?

[NinaZara]

Do you mean the damper, Michael? I thought they put it on the ground or the base of the building. Not so tall building then.

Anyway WTC did collapse like it was purposely done, I mean like when people demolish buildings. It's not easy to make sure the other buildings around unaffected.(try play Jenga and see if you can make they collapse inward, thou Jenga is hardly a comparison to a real building...hmm)

Either the terrorists were being considerate (as to not cause too many damages) or they just wanted to show off they can do maths. Which do you think is crazier?

Or maybe they just found the 'achilles heel' of the building like you said.

[Torsten]

Well, there are a number of things to consider. For example, I read that in 2001 Larry Silverstein signed a 99 year lease contract for the World Trade Center site. The deal was described in a press release on July 24, 2001:

"Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will lease the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex in a deal worth approximately $3.2 billion – the city's richest real estate deal ever and one of the largest privatization initiatives in history."

The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money. Silverstein was also given the right to rebuild the structures, should they be destroyed.

What I'm trying to do is distinguish between facts and fiction. This is not easy because I rely on media resources. Now, let's assume the Silverstein lease agreement was a fact. I'm not implying anything. I don't know what happened on September 11 and I doubt that anyone here on the forum knows all the facts of the events. Looking at the Silverstein deal, I must admit that it's quite a coincidence that in the very same year the 99 year contract was signed both towers came down.

Now, have a look at this:

"After, putting a $124 million down payment on the property, Silverstein promptly insured the buildings for $7 Billion. Silverstein was careful that the policies covered the complex against "terrorist attacks.

As a result of the destruction of the Twin Towers, Mr. Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money."

So, the richest real estate deal in the history of New York goes through a couple of months before the city's worst attack happens. Again, I'm not implying anything, maybe my resources are not accurate. Maybe, none of the Silverstein story is true.

What do you think?
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary

[Aereal]

[Torsten]

[Prezbucky]

...because when there are people who harm civilians on purpose, they must be stopped. They won't stop if we send them flowers and pizza.


_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Yankee]

Hi Torsten

I've read stuff about Silverstein before and it seems like a bunch of smoke and mirrors to me. It's typically a few statements without much detail, what detail there is often varies, and it's conveniently presented in such a way that it looks suspicious.

What do people do when they buy a house, for example?

1. Very few people can afford to pay in full for a house. Typically they make a partial payment and borrow the rest -- a mortgage, which is slowly paid off over a period of years. Why should it be any different for Silverstein?

2. People with mortgages also insure their houses. This is completely normal! If the house is destroyed, the owner is still liable for the full purchase price. Additionally, the contents of the house must be replaced, the remains of the demolished house must be removed, potentially toxic waste must be dealt with, rebuilding often costs more than the original, etc, etc, etc.

3. If someone bought a building that had already been a terrorist target once, why would it be unusual to make sure that their insurance policy covered any possible future terrorist attacks? It seems completely logical to me to make sure that sort of insurance is included. It would have seemed much stranger to me if Silverstein had NOT made sure terrorism was covered.

To me, all the 'suggestive' stuff that I've read about Silverstein seems purposely designed to mislead and/or to create sensational headlines.

Amy

[Torsten]

[Aereal]

Can you think of any ways to stop a hijacker? You can't just tell him: "hey, yo, i'm gonna kill ya, punk..." - the guy is just about killing himself... how can you frighten him?
_________________
my game is fair play

[Conchita]

[Fan Of Arabian Horses]

[NinaZara]

[Yankee]

[Fan Of Arabian Horses]

Amy, I think Pearl Harbour is history and also Hiroshima is and no Japanese is crying for revenge any longer.

Obvious is that on the one hand Islamic terrorists must have demolished the towers or on the other hand Michael Moore had claimed that Larry Silverstone had had a reason (some Billion! Dollar) to organize such an event.

No, I don?t reject your thoughts in your recent post. There are just some questions left.

Why did Silverstone rent a building that is obviously offended by terrorists and insured it for some billion dollars? Would you rent a house that is offended by earthquakes if you can?t insure it and you don?t make profit from it? So why rented Silverstone the WTC? Did he have had any clue about terrorist?s plans?

Sorry, my imaginativeness is getting wings again. I also think/hope that my thoughts are fiction too. It would be worse if not.

By the way, Amy, the link you advised to in your latter post attested that at least my theory about the technical possibilities could be right although my assumption/imaginations concerning the reasons might fail.

Regards

Michael

[Yankee]

Hi Michael

Yes, I know the article basically supports your ideas about how the buildings collapsed.

My comment about Japan was not serious. I find that idea just as ridiculous as thinking Larry Silverstein had some kind of scam in mind or some kind of plan to destroy the WTC. To me, both ideas are ridiculous.

Larry Silverstein is a real estate developer. Buying property is what he does. He also owns other properties in NYC. When the 99-year lease deal was offered, there were a number of developers who bid on it -- not just Silverstein! So, this sort of offer was interesting not just to Silverstein, but rather to a number of developers.

Silverstein's bid was originally the second highest, however the high bidder later decided against the deal. I don't know what the reasons were, but I suppose it would be possible to find out. Anyway, after that happened, Silverstein became the highest bidder and won the deal. As you know, he (his company) basically borrowed most of the money for the WTC. Do you suppose his lenders said "Don't worry Larry, you don't need insurance."??? Of course not! They insisted on insurance against terrorism and they also insisted that it be "adequate".

When the Twin Towers were destroyed, Silverstein suddenly had an investment that wasn't doing what it was intended to do: generate income. He had none of the office space left and therefore no renters paying rent. That was and still is lost income for him. Meanwhile he still had to make huge payments on the WTC every month. The insurance companies initially wanted to pay out very little for the WTC. The insurance payment issue was in court for years. In COURT. This issue has been scrutinized in the courts!!! In the meantime, Silverstein had no insurance money for quite a long time, and he had no Twin Towers producing income -- but he was (and still is) making huge monthly payments on his nonexistent buildings.

The idea that Silverstein was somehow involved in the destruction of the WTC is ludicrous to me. It's absurd.

Amy

[Alan]

Hi Prezbucky,

I've patiently held off commenting on what you wrote but I really can't hold off any longer. What I want to know is whether you actually believe in what you have written or whether the words tumbled out of some half remembered comments currently floating through the collective thinking of others. You comment on the situation in Iraq almost as if it is a bit of a problem but then there we go, that's life. What depresses me is the two main protagonists in this endless tragedy never express any sense of remorse, regret or understanding of what they have unleashed in this area of the world. They adopt outrageous piety and seem shocked that anyone doubts their sincerity or even dares impugn their essential goodness and moral standing. Do they, I wonder, in those very private moments of life when no-one is watching and the microphones are switched off, weep and rail against their own hubris? Or am I being a hopeless Romantic in presupposing that they share the common humanity of the rest of us?

Your innocence, Prezbucky, is, if I may say so, sublime. Your comments fill me with a sense of foreboding that someone of a different generation from mine and to all intents and purposes a 'regular guy' should want to write such things and presumably believe them.